"4.3.3.
Wildcards
In the previous algorithm, special treatment was given to RRs with owner names starting with the label "*". Such RRs are called wildcards. Wildcard RRs can be thought of as instructions for synthesizing RRs. "
From the IAB comment on Verisign's implementation of IDN :
"5] The system deployed for .com and .net does not follow the specification for targets not in a zone. Instead, it examines the target and decides whether to give the specified negative response or a synthesized record based on whether the target contains a code point above 127. This is a violation of the DNS protocol as described in RFC 2308, Section 2.1. While it is possible within the DNS protocol to include *wildcard records* which cover all queries not otherwise specified by a zone, this is not what VeriSign has done." (emphasis added)
(see http://www.icann.org/correspondence/iab-message-to-lynn-25jan03.htm)
I see no breakage here.
Bill Semich
At 09:37 AM 3/23/2003, Martin v. L�wis wrote:
James Seng schrieb:Can you elaborate? How does this break anything? They respond to strictly erroneous requests, with erroneous responses. I can't see how this could cause failures of other participants of the DNS.
Two wrong dont make it right. Nothing in RFC 1034 & 1035 mention the DNS should response error with error.
Certainly correct, and I completely agree that such a server is not following the DNS RFCs. However, I was specially asking how this protocol violation is "breaking the basic functionity of DNS".
According to RFC 2616, the BNF for Host header is as follows: Host = "Host" ":" host [ ":" port ] And "host" is adopted from RFC 2396,
Ah, I see. That was not clear to me, as section 14.23 refers to section 3.2.2 only, which does not refer further (although 3.2.1 does, which I missed).
Regards, Martin
Bill Semich President and CEO .NU Domain Ltd http://www.nunames.nu [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 508 359 5600 ext 110 See IDG's "IT Folk" http://itfolk.idg.se/person.asp?n=william_j_semich&type=2
